When Amazon announced plans for a second headquarters in 2017, it promised 50,000 high-paying jobs and billions in investment for a community that would be coequal to its home in Seattle. The company, which outgrew the number of people it could hire in the Pacific Northwest, set off a nationwide frenzy, with more than 200 cities making bids. (We in Orlando even thought we had a decent shot for being selected. But I guess when Amazon listed cultural opportunities as a criteria, they didnt count Disney World). In the end, Amazon decided last fall that no one city could provide the number of tech workers it needed and split the headquarters in two. The winners: Arlington, VA., and NYC.

But, as the whole world knows, Amazon last week canceled its plans to build the expansive campus in NYC after facing an unexpectedly fierce backlash from lawmakers, progressive activists and union leaders, who contended that a tech giant did not deserve nearly $3 billion in government incentives that the state and city had offered in their confidential bid package. The backlash in New York showed no sign of abating and risked tarnishing Amazons image beyond the city.

Amazon, one of the richest companies in the world, run by the richest man in the world, had held a nationwide contest in which governments scraped together enough entitlements to satisfy it, even as those same cities struggled to fortify corroding infrastructure and stave off a housing crisis that has pushed the middle class to the brink and forced the poor into homeless shelters, wrote The New York Times (Feb. 15, 2019). Our current system of location incentives, in which powerful corporations can pry billions in tax benefits out of cities and states to locate facilities, without any added investment in infrastructure, schools and other benefits, is one worth a class discussion.

1. How important are incentives, in the final analysis, in location decisions?
2. What was the final straw for Amazon, in deciding to pull out of NYC?